Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Nagendra Pratihast vs State Of Raj And Ors on 18 April, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 541/2015
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13372/2010
Nagendra Pratihast S/o Panchanand Pratihast, Aged 64 Years,
R/o House No. 901-902, Mahavir Nagar-II, Kota-Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Personnel (K-3/Enquiry), Government of Rajasthan-Jaipur.
2. Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv. With
Mr. Himanshu Kala, Adv.,
Mr. Movil Jeenwal, Adv., &
Mr. Nripraj Bhati, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill, AAG, with
Ms. Shikha Sharma, AAAG for State
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment
Date of conclusion of arguments : 18/03/2026
Date on which judgment was reserved : 18/03/2026
Whether the full judgment or only
the operative part is pronounced : Full judgment
Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2026
(Per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice)
1. The appellant had preferred a writ petition before this Court
wherein he stated that he was a regular student of Sanskrit at Shri
Sitaramiya Sanskrit University, Muzaffurnagar and while learning, he
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
2
used to travel to Vrindavan, Mathura to teach poor people and
students as a part of his religious responsibilities at Shri Ram Krishna
Sanskrit College, Vrindavan, Mathura (UP) (which was an organization
of religious teaching) in the year 1996. He asserted that he did not
charge any fee nor did he receive any remuneration for the same. The
appellant pursued his studies as a regular student in the subject of
Astrology (Jyotish) and qualified the examinations with first grade in
the year 1968 and in the year 1971, he passed Vyakaran Shastra from
the same college with first grade.
2. On 22.01.1973, he was appointed as Teacher Gr.-II on temporary
basis at Vithal Nath Sanskrit College, Kota. At the time of screening,
certificates of teaching experience had been presented, but were not
considered for the purpose of appointment as they were found to be
from the institutions outside the State which is not recognized by any
University or the State body. Appellant was further appointed as
Assistant Professor (Astrology). The appointment of the appellant in
the aided institution was later on sanctioned by the State Government.
3. It was further stated that he was appointed as Assistant
Professor (Astrology) in the year 1980 and was further promoted to
the post of Professor. On 12.02.1998, the private college where the
appellant was posted as Professor was taken over by the State
Government. On 04.12.1999, the Selection Committee of the State
Government screened all the eligible candidates and after analyzing
the record of the appellant, the Committee selected the appellant on
the post of Professor. Thereafter he was further promoted as Principal
of the College by the respondents.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
3
4. The appellant asserts that an enquiry was conducted solely on
the basis of the complaint filed by one unknown person with respect to
his educational qualification, wherein, while his educational
qualifications were found to be correct, with regard to the experience
certificates submitted by him, it was found that they were never
utilized for any purpose nor any benefit was given to him. However,
the enquiry officer opined that further enquiry to be convened for the
experience certificates as they were found to be doubtful and a
proposal was made to conduct a regular enquiry.
5. The State Government issued a charge sheet to the appellant on
11.03.2008 wherein, it was stated that while working as Principal at
Shri Ram Krishna Sanskrit College, Shri Laxmi Kant Bhawan,
Vanshiwat Vrindavan, Mathura (UP) from 01.11.1966 to 21.01.1973,
he had acquired educational qualification as regular student in the year
1968 from Shri Sitaramiya Sanskrit College, Muzaffarpur under
Kameshwar Singh Darbangha Sanksrit University, Bihar, in Jyotish
subject with first grade. Further in 1971, the appellant pursued his
studies as a regular student and passed ‘Naveen Shastri’ Examination
from Radha Krishna Sanskrit College, Mathura. Thus, he had
committed serious misconduct while submitting experience certificate
of Principal from 01.11.1966 to 21.01.1973, whereas he was studying
as a regular student at another place during the said period.
6. In the statement of allegations, it was pointed out that he has
shown in his documents, to have been a teacher of Madhyama Classes
from 01.11.1966 to 08.07.1967, of Shastri Classes 01.11.1966 to
21.01.1973 and of Acharya from 01.08.1968 to 21.01.1973 in the
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
4
subject of Jyotish. Thus, the certificate issued from the concerned
institute on 01.02.1974 is not valid.
7. He has also placed on record a Certificate issued from the College
at Mathura as a regular student in the subject of Vyakaran Shastra,
whereas, he was himself the Principal of that particular college in the
year 1971 and thus, there was a doubt about his qualifications as well
as his experience certificates.
8. As per the departmental enquiry conducted, it was found by the
enquiry officer that the charges were proved. Vide order dated
22.09.2010, appellant-writ petitioner was removed from service based
on the enquiry report.
9. The appellant preferred a writ petition and challenged the order
of removal. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition.
10. Hence, this appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single
Judge has failed to consider that as far as the experience certificates
are concerned which are stated to have been filed by the
appellant/petitioner, they were never used to receive any benefit. So
far as the educational qualifications are concerned, they were found to
be correct and authentic. He submitted that the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge is based on his own assessment with respect
to the age of the appellant and the educational qualifications acquired
by him, whereas, the same were never questioned by any authority.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment of removal
from service on the basis of experience certificates, which were never
utilized and were issued by a religious institution, was very harsh and
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
5
was not required to have been imposed, especially when the same
relate to the private institution where the appellant had been
appointed. The appellant became a Government Servant only in the
year 1998 when the college where the appellant was posted as
Professor of Jyotish Shastra, was taken over by the State Government.
Also, the date alleged is for a period prior to his employment in the
State Government and the Certificates of experience were issued to
him as a token of appreciation for his religious teachings in the
charitable institution during the vacations.
13. Learned counsel also submits that the Certificates had not been
rejected by the State Government. At the time of screening, the
certificates were not considered for the purpose of appointment as
they were found to be from other State, therefore, he submits that the
services rendered for the department for 37 years ought not have
been put to naught. Learned counsel submits that there was no
misconduct committed by appellant and therefore, the entire
proceedings conducted, whereby he has been removed from service,
are bad in law.
14. He relies on the judgment passed in the case of Galaxo
Labroratries Vs. Presiding Labour Court, Meerut (1984) 1 SCC
1. He further relies on Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Government of
N.C.T. (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 58, to submit that an accused can only
be charged for offence of misconduct if there was a finding of fact that
he was guilty of unlawful behaviour in relation of discharge of his
duties. He, therefore, submits that it is evident that the appellant who
had never taken benefit of the Certificates issued by the institution
could not be said to have committed any misconduct.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
6
15. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, to submit that ‘misconduct’ must
relate to, conduct during service and conduct which is in violation of
prescribed duties or discipline of a government servant. The alleged
experience certificates pertain to a period prior to the appellant’s entry
into government service and therefore, he could not have been
penalized for possessing these documents. Moreover, the Certificates
have been issued for teaching during vacations in a religious
institution. Sanskrit at a religious institution could be taught by a
person who is not duly qualified and who is undergoing studies. It is
not uncommon for students to be teaching in Sanskrit Institutions. The
appellant had served the State Government for more than 35 years
and there was an unblemished service record.
16. Learned counsel relies on Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh 1983 (2) SCC 442, to submit that the penalty imposed
must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that
any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
17. He further submits that in the case of Pinky Meena vs. The
High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Ors., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1214, the Supreme Court found that the concerned
appellant had obtained a degree of LL.B. and B.Ed. simultaneously
which were related to the period prior to being a Judicial Officer.
Similarly, in respect of LL.M. degree also, the concerned writ-petitioner
had not been a Judicial Officer and was serving as a Teacher Gr.-II and
she was not a government servant on the date of interview as she had
tendered resignation.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
7
18. Further, he submits that in Pawan Parajapati Vs. Union of
India, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.873/2023, decided on
27.02.2026 wherein the Rajasthan High Court relied on Ranjit
Thakur Vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, it was held that the
disciplinary action must bear a reasonable nexus with the gravity of
the misconduct and cannot be imposed mechanically without
considering the mitigating circumstances.
19. Learned counsel also relies on a judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of CISF Vs. Abrar Ali (2017) 4 SCC 507
where the penalty of dismissal was found to be excessive and harsh.
He also relies on the judgment passed in the case of Girish Bhushan
Goyal Vs. BHEL and Another (2014) SCC 182 where the dismissal
order served on the appellant just six days prior to his retirement was
found to be exorbitant and disproportionate.
20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that
the appellant had remained posted in Vitthal Nath Sanskrit College,
Kota, which was an aided institution from 22.01.1973, on the post of
Teacher Gr.-II. He was thereafter posted as Professor in History of
Sanskrit Literature, but since the post was not sanctioned at that time,
he was posted as a Professor (Astrology) vide order dated 14.01.1981.
Subsequently, the institution was merged in the State Government
vide order dated 02.12.1999 and several complaints were received
towards the entries made in the service record of the appellant
regarding educational qualifications, teaching experience, date of birth
etc. A departmental enquiry was conducted and his date of birth,
educational qualifications and certificates were found to be dubious.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
8
The preliminary enquiry report has been placed on record by the
respondents.
21. It is further submitted that the services of the appellant were
merged with the State Government and vide communication dated
03.07.2007, the matter was, therefore, forwarded for further
proceedings under the Rajasthan Civil Services (classification,. Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
22. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2330/2004, the High Court passed
an order directing conclusion of the enquiry proceedings to ascertain
the genuineness and correctness of the documents relating to the
appellant/petitioner and in compliance thereof, he was served with the
charge sheet on 11.03.2008 and Additional Commissioner (Ist)
Departmental Enquiry was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted
department enquiry and submitted the enquiry report on 24.09.2009
and the same was provided to the petitioner who submitted his
response. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry
report and issued order of removal of petitioner from service vide
order dated 22.09.2010 and thus, the appellant was removed from
service.
23. Learned counsel for the State also submits that during the
enquiry proceedings, it was found that while the appellant pursued his
studies as a regular student and qualified examinations of Shastri
(Astrology), Shastri (Phalit Jyotish), Ancient Acharya and Modern
Classical Grammar. The experience certificates were also of the same
period of teaching on the post of Principal which could not have been
done simultaneously and therefore, it amounts to misconduct. It is
submitted that the penalty of removal from service was imposed after
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
9
considering all the aspects and also looking into the gravity of the
charges which does not warrant any interference.
24. Having noticed the submissions, as above, we find that the
appellant has been charge-sheeted for having placed on service record
the documents relating to having experience of working as a Principal
in Shri Ram Krishna Sanskrit College, Vrindavan, Mathura, while he
was undergoing regular course of studies at Shri Sitaramiya Sanskrit
College, Muzaffarpur under Kameshwar Singh Darbangha Sanksrit
University, Bihar during the said period. The appellant has been held
guilty of misconduct under the Rules of 1971. The entire basis of
chargesheet is misconceived.
25. We are of the view that the experience certificates are not stated
to be forged document.
26. The appellant asserts that he was teaching during vacations and
an experience certificate has been given to him for the said purpose.
Since the same has not been, in any manner, connected with his
service, nor it has been utilized for the purpose of appointment or
promotion or for any other purpose, the document of experience
certificate would have no relevance and therefore, the same cannot be
used to initiate departmental enquiry.
27. We find that the entire process of departmental proceedings was
initiated on the basis of a complaint which was anonymous.
28. We also notice that the appointment of the appellant was in a
private institution which was getting aid from the State Government.
The educational qualifications of the appellant have not been found to
be forged. The same have been the basis for giving him further
promotion from time to time and at the time when the charge sheet
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
10
was issued, he was holding the post of Principal of the Government
College. The Enquiry Officer has proceeded and relied on a preliminary
enquiry report which was not conducted with the participation of the
appellant and is based on suspicion.
29. Law in this regard is well settled. Suspicion cannot take place of
conclusive proof. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramanand Alias Nandlal Bharti vs State of Uttar Pradesh
(2023) 16 SCC 510 regarding departmental enquiries, recently has
held that the Court while examining the enquiry proceedings, may also
look into the facts of the case and see whether the entire allegations
can be said to be sufficient to hold that the person has committed a
misconduct.
30. Once we have reached to the conclusion, as above, that no
misconduct was committed by the appellant, there was no misconduct
found to have been committed which can be said to be a basis of
initiating of charge sheet. The entire proceedings would stand vitiated.
31. We also notice that it is a case where presumptions have taken
place of probability of misconduct based on suspicions.
32. We also notice that there is no allegation of having committed
any delinquency during the service period by the appellant.
33. The judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the
appellant, as noticed above, would, therefore, have application to the
case.
34. In Surendra Prasad Shukla v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 8
SCC 536, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“9.There was no charge against the appellant that he had
in any way aided or abetted the offence under Section 392
IPC or that he knew that his son had stolen the car and yet(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
11he did not inform the police. The appellant, as we have
held, was guilty of negligence of not having enquired from
his son about the car kept in front of the government
quarters occupied by him. The appellant had served the
Government as a Constable and thereafter as a Head
Constable from 7-8-1971 till he was dismissed from
service on 28-2-2005 i.e. for 34 years, and for such long
service he had earned pension. In our considered opinion,
the punishment of dismissal of the appellant from service
so as to deprive him of his pension for the service that he
had rendered for 34 long years was shockingly
disproportionate to the negligence proved against him.
10.We accordingly, allow this appeal in part and modify
the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory
retirement. The LPA and the writ petition filed by the
appellant before the High Court are allowed in part. There
shall be no order as to costs.”
35. In Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India 1987(4) SCC 611, the
Apex Court passed the following order:
“25.Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed
against a decision, but is directed against the “decision-
making process”. The question of the choice and quantum
of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of
the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence
and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly
harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence
as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to
conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of
proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review,
would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise,
within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the
decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous
defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune
from correction. Irrationality and perversity are
recognised grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil
Service Unions v.Minister for the Civil Service [(1984) 3
WLR 1174 (HL) : (1984) 3 All ER 935, 950] Lord Diplock
said:
“Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today
when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by
which the development has come about, one can
conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on
which administrative action is subject to control by judicial
review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second
‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That
is not to say that further development on a case by case
basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I
have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
12future of the principle of ‘proportionality’ which is
recognised in the administrative law of several of our
fellow members of the European Economic
Community;. . .”
36. In Pinky Meena (supra) under almost similar circumstances,
where action was taken against the delinquent on the basis of a
complaint filed by another person, she was discontinued on account of
having obtained LL.B. and B.Ed. degrees simultaneously, which related
to a period prior to her joining as a judicial officer. The Supreme Court
observed as under:
“17.This Court has carefully gone through the show
cause notice dated 17.02.2020 issued to the appellant
and a bare perusal of the same establishes that
misconduct, if any, in respect of obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed
degree simultaneously relates to the service period prior
to being a Judicial Officer. Similarly, in respect of LL.M.
degree also, she was not a Judicial Officer and she was
serving as a Teacher Grade-II in the Education
Department of Government of Rajasthan. So far as the
allegation with regarding to suppression of material
information regarding past government service, the
appellant submitted resignation on 25.10.2018 from the
post of Teacher Grade-II and on the date of interview i.e.
on 02.11.2018, she was required to furnish certain
information as per the check list and it is a fact that on
the date of interview, she was no longer a government
servant as she had tendered her resignation and in those
circumstances, there is certainly an omission on the part
of the appellant in not mentioning about her past record
of government service.
23.This Court has carefully gone through the
aforementioned statutory provision of law which deals
with employment by irregular or improper means. In the
present case, at the best, it can be held that there was
an omission on the part of the appellant in informing the
employer about her past government service. Further, a
reasonable explanation has also been provided by the
appellant regarding her past government service by
stating that at the time of submission of check list, the
appellant was not in government service and, therefore,
in those circumstance, she was not required to mention
the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a
minor irregularity (omission).”
37. In Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and
Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 560, it was held as under:
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
13“14.Thus, the present one is a case wherein we are
satisfied that the punishment of removal from service
imposed on the appellant is not only highly excessive
and disproportionate but is also one which was not
permissible to be imposed as per the Service Rules.
Ordinarily we would have set aside the punishment and
sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for
passing the order of punishment afresh in accordance
with law and consistently with the principles laid down in
the judgment. However, that would further lengthen the
life of litigation. In view of the time already lost, we
deem it proper to set aside the punishment of removal
from service and instead direct the appellant to be
reinstated in service subject to the condition that the
period during which the appellant remained absent from
duty and the period calculated up to the date on which
the appellant reports back to duty pursuant to this
judgment shall not be counted as a period spent on duty.
The appellant shall not be entitled to any service benefits
for this period. Looking at the nature of partial relief
allowed hereby to the appellant, it is now not necessary
to pass any order of punishment in the departmental
proceedings in lieu of the punishment of removal from
service which has been set aside. The appellant must
report on duty within a period of six weeks from today to
take benefit of this judgment.”
38. We concur with the view taken by this Court as well as by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, as above.
39. In view of the above, we allow this Special Appeal and set aside
the order of removal dated 22.09.2010, holding that the appellant-writ
petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. However, since the order of
removal was passed on 22.09.2010 and the appellant has not
performed duties thereafter, and may have attained the age of
superannuation by now, we direct that the appellant shall be deemed
to have been reinstated in service. However, he shall be entitled only
to notional benefits of service from 22.09.2010 up to the date of his
retirement, along with all actual retiral and pensionary benefits under
the relevant rules to which he is statutorily entitled thereafter. The
arrears of pension and other retiral benefits shall be paid to him @ 9%
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
14
per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment. The
necessary exercise shall be conducted within a period of two months.
40. All pending application(s) stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ
Govind/
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:39:39 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:28:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
